![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
![]()
Just how effective is the bolo vs. firearms? ... as stupid as the question may sound
![]() While not efficient (casualty rate among bolomen was obviously high), just the same when employed properly tactically, the result can be effective. Here's a continuation of Fulton's article: Like all good guerilla fighters, the Filipinos were improvisers. They took advantage of the tropical topography with its exceptionally high grasses (well over six feet tall), dense jungles, and winding, constricted trails, to mount ambushes using a tactic called “the bolo rush”. The Philippine bolo is a fearsome, short (16” to 18”), single-edged, razor-sharp cutting weapon. Every farmer had one and knew how to use it, whether for harvesting crops, hacking trails through jungle, or taking off a limb in a fight. A large force, often 100-200 “bolo men” would lie hidden near a trail. When a smaller American patrol came along in single-file, Filipino snipers would fire, forcing them to drop for cover. At a signal, the bolo men would rush the soldiers lying prone on the trail, inevitably losing many in their ranks to rifle fire but occasionally overwhelming the Americans with their sheer numbers and the ferocity of the charge. Commissioned officers and sergeants, armed only with the Colt .38 revolver, were a primary target. As an aside, though the clamor for a higher caliber sidearm [.45] is more associated with the encounter with the Moros, as Fulton pointed out the origins can actually be traced back to the US military's earlier experience with the bolomen of northern (Luzon) and central (Visayas) Philippines. |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|